“A psychological inquiry of great depth and tragic urgency. A deep humanity and informs this book which is full of original and provocative insights.” —Walter A. Davis, Professor Emeritus of English, Ohio State University

“A riveting examination of the ideology that was the source of both warfare and genocide. Dr. Koenigsberg’s is a message that anyone with an interest in changing the course of human history should internalize and reflect upon. Can human beings transcend war? If so, Nations Have the Right to Kill will be one of our most important guides. Its striking lucidity will be a catalyst for our collective evolution.”—Lee Hall, JD

We’ve noted that Hitler had witnessed the death and maiming of his comrades during the First World War; and knew millions of Germans had died. Yet despite the devastation, Hitler asserted that it would be a “sin to complain”—because after all, were the men not “dying for Germany?”

Hitler never abandoned “Germany,” and rarely criticized the German military leaders, Hindenburg and Ludendorff. This does not mean, however, that he did not have doubts.

In Mein Kampf (1924), Hitler conveyed his thoughts and feelings after he had learned (in November 1918) that Germany had signed the armistice and surrendered:

And so it had all been in vain. In vain all the sacrifices and privations; in vain the hunger and thirst of months which were often endless; in vain the hours in which, with mortal fear clutching at our hearts, we nevertheless did our duty; and in vain the death of the two millions who died.

Was this the meaning of the sacrifice which the German mother made to the fatherland when with sore heart she let her best-loved boys march off, never to see them again?

Still, Hitler could not—would not—condemn the German nation itself. Finally, he could not—would not—conclude that German sacrifices had been in vain.

What occurred was that Hitler engaged in a psychological sleight of hand. He deflected the question of why so many Germany men had died into another question: Why had some men died—and not others. This question tormented Hitler throughout his life.

The best German men, Hitler believed, were more likely to have died in the First World War. These were the virtuous ones—who had volunteered for military service and did not shy away from entering battle.

On the other hand, Hitler explained in Mein Kampf, for every “hero who had made the supreme sacrifice,” there were “shirkers” who had “cunningly dodged death” at the pretense of being “engaged in business at home.”

Consequently, while the “best human material” was being “thinned on the battlefield,” the worst people “wonderfully succeeded in saving themselves.” Those who survived were the “worst elements of the population” who preserved themselves by “taking advantage of absurd laws.”

This classification of human beings structured Hitler’s perception of what had occurred during the First World War. On the one hand were human beings who had sacrificed their lives for Germany. On the other hand were “shirkers”—who had avoided sacrificing their lives.

Hitler become obsessed—disturbed and enraged—contemplating the idea that some men had died in the war, whereas others had avoided fighting. How to deal with human beings who had refused to sacrifice their lives for Germany? Hitler’s answer to this question was the source of everything that was to follow.